On Saturday 23 January 2010 02:44:39 Luke Plant wrote:
> BTW, further research shows that we are not really RFC 2109
> compliant at all, but then again no-one is. It seems virtually
> everyone (server side and client side) is using 'Netscape style'
> cookies with some things adopted from RFC
On Saturday 23 January 2010 01:20:55 Sean Brant wrote:
> Whats the downside of fixing this at the core cookie handling
> level? I agree with Luke and only ran across this bug when the new
> messaging framework dropped. However if we are going to fix the
> problem, and I do think it's a problem
On Jan 22, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Well, it depends on what you call the 'spec'. What spec says that
> commas in values is invalid?
>
> The 'spec' linked to on that WebKit bug is a preliminary Netscape
> document, which, as far as I can tell, eventually turned into RFC
> 2109,
On Friday 22 January 2010 19:20:20 Vinay Sajip wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:53 pm, SmileyChris wrote:
> > If we're to accept that turbogears example, it sounds like we're
> > not properly encoding the cookie in core, rather than patching
> > messages.
>
> Yes, it appears to be a matter of luck that othe
On Jan 22, 1:53 pm, SmileyChris wrote:
> If we're to accept that turbogears example, it sounds like we're not
> properly encoding the cookie in core, rather than patching messages.
Yes, it appears to be a matter of luck that other browsers accept
cookie values which are invalid according to the c
Looking around, this looks like a problem for other frameworks too
(see http://trac.turbogears.org/ticket/1164)
If we're to accept that turbogears example, it sounds like we're not
properly encoding the cookie in core, rather than patching messages.
On Jan 23, 2:23 am, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> Hi
Hi Asgeir,
Cool, thanks.
According to http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/ ,
before someone will look closer at the problem,
could you please create a) a ticket describing this problem, and b)
create a test case demonstrating the problem?
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM,
On Jan 20, 3:15 pm, sago wrote:
> I've had one very long and complex issue with a major client over
> legacy databases with Composite Primary Keys (and other composite keys
> more generally), an issue which has also come up in other contexts.
> One of my smaller clients switched to a strange basta
This is the best news I've heard for a long time!
This was also my biggest disappointment with Django. This bit me in my
first django project, which incidentally was also my first experience
with ORM.
Basically I had the following class structure:
Project
Art Project
Research Project
-
The problem:
When using annotate on a queryset from objects.all() and then using an
exclude via a related table, accessing the queryset causes an
AttributeError.
Please note that excluding first, and then calling annotate works.
This is however not possible in my case, because I want the annotate
Hi Jeff,
Could you try again without a comma in the message and see if the
CookieStorage starts working again? Either way, that definitely sounds like
a bug to me.
Thanks,
Tobias
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> Sean-
>
> Can't say for sure it's related, but I can
Wow, amazing job!
This addresses the big disappointment I felt when I found out django
Model Inheritance didn't do this by default. I used some ugly
workarounds to make it happen and this seems like the perfect
solution. Main problem is that it requires django 1.1, I'm working
with trunk/1.2, but
Hi,
I must correct my post. When I used "default" option I mean "choices"
option.
On 18 led, 22:23, Михаил Лукин wrote:
> There is no need in ENUM functionality since 'choices=' option exists.
I must disagree with you. It looks like choices emulate ENUM but it's
not true.
What's not supported:
-
Established in 2001, Mercurytide is an industry expert in web
development, with offices in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. We only
employ individuals of an expectantly high standard and use Django as
our main platform.
We are looking to recruit for the following positions for our
Edinburgh office:
D
14 matches
Mail list logo
